Obama promised to bring change to America. For me, I wanted change in Middle Eastern relations,and the Iragi War. I wanted an end to America's dependancy on Middle Eastern oil. Most of the candidates promised to do this. I dont really see 'change'.

Just two questions. What did you want/hoped Obama would change about America's situation? And do you see the change you wanted/hoped for?(These questions arent' just for Americans. People outside of the U.S are welcome to offer opininions.)

You can see a list of some changes I hoped for on a "Change" thread on this board. I have seen almost none of them realized. I've seen so few changes that I've taken to sometimes calling the President Barack Bush.

My reasons for voting for Obama were two-fold: (1) We need a national healthcare plan, and this would not happen with a Republican president, and (2) Our Supreme Court is rapidly aging and the person we elected president in '08 would probably get to appoint 2 or 3 new justices. The right to abortion hangs in the balance. (BTW, this is what convinced my usually Republican hubby to vote for Obama).

So, for me, still less than a year in, change has at least started. I don't agree with the Obama administration on everything, but a good start.

Considering America is still just right of center what can we progressives reasonably expect? Nothing happens too quickly in Washington so it can be frustrating. The problem with our elected officials is that they are beholding to the large corporations and unfortunately their allegiance goes to them before the people who elect them. If anything we need sweeping election reform but will it ever happen? No way, no how! So us little folks get a bone here and there and we're expected to be happy for what little they send our way.

I really wanted to see Medicare for all but that's not going to happen. I would be happy to see Medicare for folks 55 and older but that's probably gone by the wayside. Changing the age for young people to be covered under their parent's insurance to age 27 is good. Most of the changes are good but definitely could have been better. But the insurance companies have paid good money to keep their interests front and center at our expense.

Unfortunately expanding our interests in Afghanistan is not a surprise. Disappointing but expected. Our economy depends on the military-industrial complex so we need to keep building bombs, tankers, armaments to keep Americans employed. If we ever decide to move away from a war economy we then need a replacement. What could it be? Do we have the maturity as a country to walk away from war to other ventures?

I am happy with Obama. He can't do it by himself. He needs the help of Democrats and reasonable, moderate Republicans to move the country forward. Unfortunately there are many who don't want to move forward and are happy with the status quo. They have theirs but sure don't want to share the wealth.

I often wonder whether my activism is worth it. You try really hard to make change and then nothing happens so you wonder whether it's in your best interest to even get involved. What laws are passed are not for the benefit of the people but the corporations. The sad part is that our country is leaving the people(us) behind and we simply do not matter.

Considering America is still just right of center what can we progressives reasonably expect? Nothing happens too quickly in Washington so it can be frustrating. The problem with our elected officials is that they are beholding to the large corporations and unfortunately their allegiance goes to them before the people who elect them. If anything we need sweeping election reform but will it ever happen? No way, no how! So us little folks get a bone here and there and we're expected to be happy for what little they send our way.

Slightly off-topic but very relevant to the future of our country is another article I happened on today by Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Sec'y of Treasury in Reagan's first term. I'd love to hear opinions on it. . . especially if someone can say it ain't so!

Hmm. Maybe I should have introduced those articles. The Glenn Greenwald one deals with a recent Washington Times article about Adm. Dennis Blair's congressional testimony regarding assassination.

Quote:

"...the Obama administration has adopted the Bush policy of targeting selected American citizens for assassination if they are deemed (by the Executive Branch) to be Terrorists."

Mr. Greenwald (who is a constitutional lawyer as well as a wonderful writer) goes on to explain why ordinary citizens should care about this policy.

Quote:

Although Blair emphasized that it requires "special permission" before an American citizen can be placed on the assassination list, consider from whom that "permission" is obtained: the President, or someone else under his authority within the Executive Branch. There are no outside checks or limits at all on how these "factors" are weighed. In last week's post, I wrote about all the reasons why it's so dangerous -- as well as both legally and Consitutionally dubious -- to allow the President to kill American citizens not on an active battlefield during combat, but while they are sleeping, sitting with their families in their home, walking on the street, etc. That's basically giving the President the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial. Who could possibly support that?

I highly recommend the entire article to anyone who thinks the Constitution is important.

The second article deals with the economic outlook.

Quote:

The media has headlined good economic news: fourth quarter GDP growth of 5.7 percent ("the recession is over"), Jan. retail sales up, productivity up in 4th quarter, the dollar is gaining strength. Is any of it true? What does it mean?

Here's a clue to the author's thoughts: The title of the article is "America - A Country of Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs." It's very readable and quite interesting.

Since I'm here, I'll add one more recommendation: Matt Taibbi's new Rolling Stone article on how Wall Street is continuing to wreak havoc on the economy and why we should all care deeply about what they're getting up to. He's the writer who gained notoriety by describing Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity." This article isn't any kinder to them.

Quote:

Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the conditions for another crash

I don't usually post much in the WWW but on the topic of change I'd like to see term limits set for congressmen and women. Then maybe more could get done. They get in office and it seems all they can think about is how to stay there and they get bought and paid for by lobbyists. I'm not sure what the magic number is for terms but something so that we don't have radical legislation pass but so that we get rid of the pigs at the trough. I'm sure we could come up with names on both sides of the aisle who need to go!

I don't usually post much in the WWW but on the topic of change I'd like to see term limits set for congressmen and women. Then maybe more could get done. They get in office and it seems all they can think about is how to stay there and they get bought and paid for by lobbyists. I'm not sure what the magic number is for terms but something so that we don't have radical legislation pass but so that we get rid of the pigs at the trough. I'm sure we could come up with names on both sides of the aisle who need to go!

The Florida State Legislature has term limits so it would be nice to have term limits in Congress. Three terms and you are out which is pretty good. The way it works now the elected officials are always running for office which means they have to accumulate a large treasury for the next race. Who can give large sums but large corporations and special interests groups so they are beholden to them. They represent them not the people who elect them to office. Too bad we have politicians elected to office and not states people who serve to make America a better country. But to be fair we are also to blame when we don't pay attention and demand better. Frankly, we are getting our just desserts.

I don't usually post much in the WWW but on the topic of change I'd like to see term limits set for congressmen and women. Then maybe more could get done. They get in office and it seems all they can think about is how to stay there and they get bought and paid for by lobbyists. I'm not sure what the magic number is for terms but something so that we don't have radical legislation pass but so that we get rid of the pigs at the trough. I'm sure we could come up with names on both sides of the aisle who need to go!

I totally agree. Unfortunately, in terms of this issue, we have left the fox in charge of the henhouse because the Senate and HoR make up their own rules for elections and terms of office. Also, even places with term limits still have issues because of inexperienced and ineffective representatives. We need to find a happy medium and exercise our power as voters by voting against incumbents - cleaning house seems like a good idea right about now (on both sides of the political aisle)._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen